Is SC judgement on schools fair?

D P SINGH & B Dengle, May 3, 2004, 12.10am IST

The recent judgement of Supreme Court concerns only the economic/structural aspect of education with utter exclusion of the concerns relating to quality, curriculum and the standard of education. Following this decision, a fee structure for the public schools in Delhi will become legally valid. But can the parents of a child coming from an economically weaker section bear the burden of expenses towards books, tiffin, transport, pocket money, etc? By remaining silent on the issue of the fundamental right to education for children in the 6-14 age group (83rd constitutional amendment) the decision exempts the State from its responsibility towards education. It makes the public schools to toe the line, provides a clean chit to the government without mentioning the abysmal condition of the government schools and offers exemption to 100% commercial institutes.

In its welcome judgement the Supreme Court has clearly asked the public schools claiming discount on land purchase to reserve a set number of seats for the economically weaker students. It also discussed the issue of transparency in the functioning of schools. But, this raises some vital questions that went unattended. In a society where the government itself doesn't believe in transparency and everything is controlled by the market forces, how can one check the accumulation spirit among public school owners? Is fee reduction a step towards a solution to this problem? Can the cherished goal of 'education for all' be achieved by merely allotting a few seats to children from economically disadvantageous background? Another grave issue requires to be discussed. Who is going to check the profit motivation of fully commercial institutes like NIIT, Amity International and so on? Most governments and majority of the political parties have always supported the dual education system - one for the wards of the ruling elite and the other for the 'have nots'. Education facility (leave alone the right to education) is still a far-fetched dream for the majority of our children though it's a fundamental right .

The Supreme Court judgement asking schools that have received some form of government support - land at concessional rates - to take in poor students is a welcome one. We have been working with underprivileged children for nearly 30 years. And our experience shows that these kids are not lacking in abilities in any way. All that they need is some opportunity to realise their potential. In that sense, this judgement opens a window of opportunity for them. Of course, it would have been better if the quality of education and infrastructure in government schools had been improved. But that looks difficult at least in the near future.

There are government schools in Delhi that are run in tents with only eight teachers for over 800 students. A child in class five or six in such schools cannot write a simple letter in Hindi. So, till the time education in government schools is improved, asking private schools to take in students from economically disadvantaged background is a good idea. We have already experimented with this concept wherein a public school agreed to run a parallel school for children from our organisation. These kids were only required to pay a part of their transportation costs and nothing else. Subsequently, they were integrated with the proper school. And the difference this has made to these children is very obvious.

And let me assure you, all this talk of poor kids being misfits in these public schools is pure hogwash. We have seen children from poor background interact with those from affluent families. Discrimination is the last thing on the minds of these children. If at all, this issue can be addressed by taking underprivileged children at an early age.On the contrary, we feel it is the parents of the privileged children who may need counselling. They may have some concerns over their children mixing with the poor. As for the fee being charged by the schools, there is no doubt that it is exorbitant in many cases. Some sort of check is definitely warranted to ensure that there is no profiteering.